Highest ranked of the Big East, CUSA, MW, MAC, and SB conferences get an automatic spot in the new postseason model. This does not include independent teams such BYU (and Idaho, New Mexico St, and Army) - how happy is BYU with independance after this? Do the BYU-Big 12 rumors start up again?

I thought the same thing. BYU has to decide whether they want post season access (and big bowl money) or if they want their television contract money and the exposure that comes with their ESPN contract. Going to the Big East might mean taking a pay cut in their television revenue becuase as one of the biggest programs in the new Big East they would be subsidizing some of the others in the television contract. This kind of announcement is sure to start all sorts of conversations about the Cougars and the BE but I think BYU is aiming higher and they aren't going to answer Aresco's phone calls

Ditto. I had the same question per the announcement. I am confident the BE/CUSA/SB/MWC/MAC one representative access meant one from that conference group and is exclusionary to independents, diliberately. So, Army, NMSU, Idaho, and BYU would have to get potential access to the top bowl group by either having a very lofty polls ranking, or join a conference already with designated terms for participation.

The only Independent given unique access was again, Notre Dame. Even ND, felt they had to make certain earlier bonds (ACC/Orange Bowl) to further secure their bargaining position.

As to NMSU & Idaho, they will join any FBS conference that will have them. They'll try to survive until that happens or ultimately fall back on FCS. Army has a few conference options if they seek it. They are Independent by choice.

BYU may be the most perplexing. They can survive awhile as a fb independent, though ultimately it may prove to be not the best situation for them. They can deal with the BE, fall back to the MWC, or hope for something better...one of the Big 5 conferences. In this context, they may be in waiting mode. Concur, the B12 appears the most plausible if BYU is holding out.

Thanks, Muskie, but it still doesn't answer the question about the 2nd teams from the BIG and SEC. Various reports seem to indicate that they are locks, so much so that the Big 12 and Pac-12 wanted their own 2nd place gurantees, although they have failed in that effort.

In a year like this, the committee could well pick 4-5 SEC teams, thus leaving no place for the BIG runner up.

OK, here's the reality...The power conferences will likely get multiple teams into the 12.

A selection committe will choose the 4 semi-final particpants and the 2 at-largeThis will likely be 4 top teams from the power conferences in the semi-finals (often let's say the champs of PAC, Big XII, B1G, and SEC, although it can be 2 teams from a conf. such as bama and LSU last year).At large will include best of BE/CUSA/MAC/SBC/MWC + one other (again, think power conferences...)

The Rose gets the top NON-SEMIFINALIST teams from B1G and PAC (TYPCIALLY one or both will be the #2 team, since the champ is in the semi-final).Same with Sugar / Orange.

Not sure we couldn't have four (count'em 4) SEC schools in the 12....2 in semi-finals, 1 in Sugar, 1 in Orange Actually same with B1G (except they haven't been that strong recently...)But you could have 2 in semi-finals, 1 in Rose, 1 in Orange.(maybe they will set a max. limit of 3...)

The new arrangement does not make me comfortable. I think it's utterly ridiculous that ND could virtually walk right into a bowl with just a sniff of respectability with anywhere from 8 to 9 wins based on their tie-ins while a 11-1 MAC team sits at home because 10-2 Louisville or Rutgers is ranked higher. It's such crap.

I don't like this new arrangement either. On the surface it looks good because there's a playoff and 12 teams get to participate in big bowls, 4 in the playoffs and 8 in the other bowls, but I really don't think that any one conference should have a guarantee for their 2nd place team. There are bound to be years when a given conference, like this years' Big Ten, do not merit 2 slots while another conference has 3 solid contenders. If all 5 of the conferences who have declared themselves superior and that they all deserve 2 spots a piece and that the best of the BE/C-USA/MWC/SBC/MAC get 1 slot between them all, then that leaves only 1 true at-large berth.

Viewership will be MUCH higher for the top 4 teams that are actually competing for the National Championship.The only relevant bowls are going to be the 2 semi-finals and the NC game.

What do you want to watch ? The #1/#4 and #2/#3 match-ups featuring the really good teamsORsome lame Orange Bowl game featuring the #2 team from the ACC vs. the #3 SEC team playing for a trophy that looks like a bowl of Oranges.

Over time these stupid "contract bowls" (Orange / Sugar/ Rose) will become increasingly irrelevant. They do not impact the National Championship, they are only about MONEY.

I see some writing on the wall, and the big fall-der-all about SIX Bowls and ONLY SIX might just have some future implications..... LIKE FOR INSTANCE......Did anyone notice how ESPN is offering $7 BILLION (for 12 years) of the bowls since there is now a nascent playoff system in place ?How long until ESPN says, we'll pay a lot more for the mix IF we can make the "contract bowls" meaningful....and the BCS will say: "Really ???" and ESPN will say "Go to 8-team playoff, Take these SIX (6) bowls and turn 4 into quarter-finals, and 2 into semi-finals... rotate them to keep everyone happy..."

I sure think that's what is coming. We might have to wait 12 years for that to happen, or perhaps momentum will build to switch to that after 6 years of the current set-up.

The dilemma from the get-go in considering a college fb playoff has been how to install a playoff system and yet maintain the bowls. Each bowl has served as a terminal activity for a season-end reward. In trying to give all the powerful interests most of what they want, the new play-off model is what they came up with. It is flawed, but as with the BCS, they'll get it operating, then reactively tweak as problems and notable complaints arise.

I think we are going to eventually evolve into an 8 team playoff system where the 6 bowls slated to be in the 2014 system serving a quarterfinal and semifinal sites on a rotational basis. We'll end up with a system much like the NCAA Men's basketball tournament where the top 4 teams will be sent to the bowls closest to them with the first seed getting priority, then the 2nd seed, and so on. Seeds 5-8 will get paired 4 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 2 vs 7, and 1 vs 8. It's only a matter of time.

Also, Quinn if you see this, I think you should set up a thread for playoff discussions--the Big 12 thread has kind of been taken over with playoff chatter--not that its a bad thing. The dialogue has been constructive.

I think we are going to eventually evolve into an 8 team playoff system where the 6 bowls slated to be in the 2014 system serving a quarterfinal and semifinal sites on a rotational basis. We'll end up with a system much like the NCAA Men's basketball tournament where the top 4 teams will be sent to the bowls closest to them with the first seed getting priority, then the 2nd seed, and so on. Seeds 5-8 will get paired 4 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 2 vs 7, and 1 vs 8. It's only a matter of time.

Also, Quinn if you see this, I think you should set up a thread for playoff discussions--the Big 12 thread has kind of been taken over with playoff chatter--not that its a bad thing. The dialogue has been constructive.

We have the BCS vs Playoffs thread, which for now, is still the case, since it's a 3 game playoff with additional BCS type bowls.

I think we are going to eventually evolve into an 8 team playoff system where the 6 bowls slated to be in the 2014 system serving a quarterfinal and semifinal sites on a rotational basis. We'll end up with a system much like the NCAA Men's basketball tournament where the top 4 teams will be sent to the bowls closest to them with the first seed getting priority, then the 2nd seed, and so on. Seeds 5-8 will get paired 4 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 2 vs 7, and 1 vs 8. It's only a matter of time.

Also, Quinn if you see this, I think you should set up a thread for playoff discussions--the Big 12 thread has kind of been taken over with playoff chatter--not that its a bad thing. The dialogue has been constructive.

Only thing, they'd have to kill off the tradition of the bowl matchups if all the playoff games (8 school playoff) were the bowls. No way the SEC and Big 12 would want to lock into a scenario where they could be #3 and #4 and have to play each other in the first round...same with the Rose Bowl.

I'm disappointed in how awful the at-large plights still are. The seventh access bowl was tossed and there's no straight answer about what happens when two extremely good "group of five" schools that could, theoretically, sit within the top-12, with a Notre Dame peeking over behind them in 15-20 land.

I'm more disappointed in what little was actually produced and how long we are going to be stuck with this should it still create massive issues (and it sounds like it will, especially in years when a major conference with multiple tie-in's is having a massively down year). This isn't a five-year tryout...we're stuck with this for over a decade. And should the presidents choose to pull off another "dark alley meeting" like they did to get the current system re-upped for another couple years, how long are we really looking at this system? 20+ years?

But I'm probably the most disappointed in how absolutely near-sighted this arrangement is when programs are knocking on the door of FBS level exposure with regard to the previous two concerns. This system isn't going to quell realignment. It will put it into hyperdrive. It isn't fair or forward-thinking, and it's so freakishly selfish to the needs of only a select and undeserving few that it truly spoils my interest of the entire level of play. It's a scam.

However, one benefit to further realignment will be the likely promotion of smaller, non-major programs into the debate. That looks most likely in the west, with the Big XII and PAC.

However, one benefit to further realignment will be the likely promotion of smaller, non-major programs into the debate. That looks most likely in the west, with the Big XII and PAC.

That's a good point to note here, particularly as it relates to the B12 & PAC.

There's so much focus on the "east" side of the country, mainly with current & former BE schools. Yet, there is the substained speculation as to where and when schools such as Rutgers, UCONN, and Louisville shall go. What this means is that the BE still retains schools viewed as appropriate to be fillers for any futher expansion among the so-called Big 5 conferences. I agree, the new playoff-off and top bowl model/system will spur some additional expansion.

There's that huge swath of terrain out west whereby the B12 and PAC don't appear to want to further touch. Granted, the PAC took-in Colorado (former B12 school) & Utah, but nothing further around there looks acceptable to them.

What unfolded in the west, could hardly have worked better for the power conferences. Annoying Boise State and SDSU got picked-off by the BE, the new, unofficial designated buffer conference of "semi-haves" between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Passed-over BYU went independent. The disrupted and re-grouped MWC squeaking for recognition to be among the big boys got greatly subdued.So, the future may be (from a bit of the cynical standpoint), that most any school, from most anywhere, that ultimately wants to try to join the big boys, may first have to audition and do a stint with the Big East and fork out a lot of cash in doing so.

The power conferences don't want to end the BE, it's now their convenient feeder as it has functioned for near a decade. And the days when the big 5 power conferences may be extracting from each other could be largely over. The default feeder-system structure is almost fully in place and has been operational.

Guess the Big 12 should be happy the conference kept the expansion committee around with the Maryland rumors to Big Ten catching fire this week.

Maryland leaving the ACC would have to be a major blow to a conference that continues to fall further behind the other four power leagues.

The recent Orange Bowl revenue comparison to Sugar Bowl payouts is just more indications of how vulnerable the ACC has become this year.

Florida State has had one foot out the door of the ACC all summer long and this Maryland move can not be looked on as a positive situation for the FSU boasters comfort level.

Factor in the Notre Dame ACC sweet heart deal which further demean Florida State reputation as a flagship school ability to carry a major power conference, and my guess there is big rumblings starting again in Tallahassee. In fact not sure they evey stopped with Florida State voting no on ACC exit fee increases.

I actually see both Florida State and Maryland having the ability to legally challenging the ACC fee increase of 50 million because both schools voted no on the increase and yet to complete a physical year of conference play since the new fees were increased..

It would not surprise me if Florida State were not already in touch with Big 12 Commissioner Bowlsby this week on possible Big 12 options.

If Florida State and Maryland could legally challenge the ACC, the exit fees for both Florida State and potentially Louisville from the Big East as a 12th school would only be 30 million dollars.

If you think about that potential dollar amount for a minute and compare the exit fees of WVU last year was a staggering 20 million, getting Florida State and Louisville for 30 million as a pair would be a bargain.

If Florida State were a one loss team in the Big 12 this year compared to the much weaker ACC in football, the school may be in consideration for the BCS championship game this year and not on the outside looking in.

The above reality situation of ACC football does not take into account the school would be making on average 10 million dollars more per year as a member of the Big 12. This is a conservative amount because there is 3 million per year in TV revenue for tier 1 and tier 2 rights, 2 to 4 million for bowl payouts of Orange compared to Sugar bowls, and tier 3 rights which Florida State would have the entire state of Florida to market these rights.

It is hard enough to turn your back on so much potential revenue as a member of a stable conference, it is foolish to do so in a conference that appears to be getting ready for yet another realignment earthquake.

It may be now or never for the ability of Florida State to escape this league that is becomming more Big East like every day.

If the B1G does go to 14 with MD & RU, and the ACC does take UCONN to replace, what does this suggest for the B12 and even the PAC?

Would the B12 still want to hang at 10 with the B1G, SEC, and the ACC at 14?

Suddenly, there may be a lot of renewed speculation about BYU and Louisville headed to the B12, and even schools such as Cincy, Tulane, UNM, or USF getting attention for somewhere.

The only reason to add teams is if adding their markets adds to your revenue. Big Ten, yes. Would Tulane really add enough to the Big XII to make it worthwhile? I don't think so (even though I want the answer to be yes. I don't think Tulane could get into the Big East right now, let alone the Big XII).

No one is going to 14 just for 14 sake. Remember how "everyone was going to 12" ? We've never had a single day with all six "BCS" conferences at 12 schools.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum